Guns in America

The NRA’s star may be on the wane

ONE of the things Europeans find incomprehensible about America is its love of guns. There are two reasons they don't get it. One is that Europeans live in a much more urbanised, regulated and crowded part of the world. More importantly the concept of owning a gun as an essential civil liberty is entirely absent. There is no second amendment guaranteeing the right to bear arms, and there is little sense that it is up to the individual to defend one's family and property.

The organisation most associated with America's culture of guns is the National Rifle Association (NRA). The NRA's lobbying arm, the Institute for Legislative Action, and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)—which drafts model legislation—have been enormously successful at pushing pro-gun laws in state legislatures. These days the debate is no longer whether assault rifles ought to be banned, but whether they should be allowed in bars, churches and schools. One group, Students for Concealed Carry, even argues that carrying concealed weapons on university campuses would be an effective means of self defence.

On the face of things, then, the NRA is a wealthy and powerful organisation. At a recent event, one speaker boasted about the political pain the organisation caused Bill Clinton during his presidency. More recently, according to OpenSecrets.org, it spent $7.2m during the 2010 election cycle. Its influence can also be seen in the way politicians respond to its demands. For example, at the height of its powers in the 1990s it succeeded in quashing research into gun-related injuries and deaths by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

But Paul Waldman, of the American Prospect, has recently argued that the NRA's dominance is a myth. He has looked closely at the figures and writes, “Despite what the NRA has long claimed, it neither delivered Congress to the Republican party in 1994 nor delivered the White House to George W. Bush in 2000.” He also argues that NRA money has no impact on congressional elections, as it spreads its money over so many races, and that NRA endorsements are “almost meaningless” as most go to incumbent Republicans with little chance of losing.

One also has to wonder if the organisation has a winning strategy for the future. Although the number of firearms in the country continues to rise, most of these sales are to repeat customers. Over the last three decades the number of households with guns has steadily declined. Changing demographics are blamed. For one, America has become more urban (gun ownership is less common in cities). White males, the gun-loving sector of American society, also make up an increasingly smaller percentage of the population. What the industry actually needs is more Latino, black and female gun enthusiasts. But the NRA isn't delivering these.

The people who turn up to NRA conventions, like the one held this week in St Louis, remain older white men. At this year's event, the main sign of women in the hall were the skimpily clad girls advertising guns. The NRA's magazines feature ads for leaf mulchers and Viagra, but not apparently the "sexy, fast and practical" bra gun holster.

More cause for concern came on April 17th, when the American Legislative Exchange Council ended its task force responsible for promoting pro-gun legislation. This followed the controversy over ALEC's ties to "stand your ground" laws around the country. ALEC will now focus its efforts on jobs, free markets and growth, but not firearms.

All of these developments suggest an attenuated NRA. The organisation has had its political power called into question, lost an ally in promoting gun laws, and caters to an ageing demographic, on top of pushing a potentially dangerous product that is of less interest to American households. Time will tell, but it seems reasonable to wonder whether the NRA has as much firepower as it claims.

I grew up with guns -- hunted pheasants, ducks and geese. Also loved to shoot clay pigeons (still do.)

I've owned many dozens of rifles and shotguns and had a lot of fun collecting, gunsmithing and target-shooting. But (and this is hard for the anti-gun lobby to understand) I regard guns as sporting tools, not weapons.

Sadly, they can be used as weapons and my own fairly liberal state has gone a little odd on this subject. It is a concealed/carry state and there was an elderly gentleman in my neighborhood (all $1mm homes and up) who used to walk around packing heat. Why?

I am a crack shot with any kind of firearm but would be apalled at the idea of carrying a personal weapon. That's the job of the police -- they're trained for it. Who knows what goofy thing I might do with a gun under the wrong circumstances?

The "stand your ground" laws are nearly as bad. For Pete's sake, just walk away if you can.

Isn't the problem confined largely to handguns? I've ridden thousands of times on NYC subways at rushhour and I'll bet that in every single crowded car there was someone carrying a pistol. But, I've never seen a rifle or shotgun -- they are almost impossible to conceal. So, instead of being just "anti-gun" shouldn't we eliminate handguns -- or at least confine them to cap-and-ball black powder loaders for those who want the sidearm "experience?"

And, these large-capacity, semi-auto magazines? What large game takes thirty rounds in quick succession to bring it down? The AK-look-alikes and the Bushmasters, et. al., have zero sporting value -- the first of these isn't especially accurate.

I'd feel a lot safer if handguns were eliminated from our society. It would also be a good idea to require that longguns have a maximum of five-rounds in the magazine and, perhaps, must be manually operated and not auto-loading.

Guns can be a lot of fun as sporting goods at a properly run range or out in the field on a hunt. But, those are the only places I can think of where they belong (other than under lock and key.)

I don't mind the NRA -- most of the members I know are super safety-conscious and utterly responsible. The organization has a legitimate purpose. But, a little common sense on what kind of guns are permitted might save a lot of lifes and a lot of worry.

As far I can see, there is a huge market in irrational fear so the NRA should be fine. The "Obama's gonna take your guns" lie requires an absolute lack of understanding of the American legislative process together with a startling lack of awareness of the Supreme Court's actual gun owning decisions. If that kind of stupidity sells, they're in business.

This kind of irrationality goes along with the "stand your ground" laws being pushed all over the country. Here in MA, there is one pending. It won't go anywhere but one of the sponsors couldn't talk about it for more than a paragraph without bringing up the nonsensical case of a guy defending his home against a break-in. Can anyone name a case where the homeowner was charged? It doesn't happen because that has been the law for ... heck, it comes from the old Common Law that predates our legal system. But you can sell irrational fear in a world full of irrational fears.

The Second Amendment has been abused beyond belief in this country. It calls for a "well-regulated militia", which clearly gives government the power to decide what weapons can and cannot be owned. There is quite simply no need for assault rifles in our communities, and anyone who says they're needed for self-defense are a bunch of damned maniacs. In fact I would go so far as to propose repealing the Second Amendment, as firearms for personal defense have become mostly irrelevant since the 19th century. The law and effective enforcement of it is what keeps people safe, not guns.

This is a common example most yanks tend to throw up, but it doesn't take into account the lack of a Swiss gun culture, their tiny population, relative wealth, good infrastructure, good national healthcare, and complete lack of paranoia about their own government.

The problem in the US is that you've been peddled all that codswallop about 2nd Amendment rights, the evil government always trying to take your 'freedoms' away etc, that now you actually believe it! Oh, and a powerful gun lobby.

I doubt very much the founding fathers, when they wrote the 2nd Amendment in 1789, had any idea the path firearms would take in the future, nor do I think they ever gave it much thought. I don't think they ever envisioned Kalashnikovs, Mini guns, 18 round automatic pistols, sub-machine guns etc etc etc. The firearms they were familiar with were muzzle loading muskets and pistols, hardly a threat to public order. Furthermore, at the time the 2nd was written, the United States had just emerged from a revolutionary war, was still rather fragile, had the British on their doorstep (Upper and Lower Canada) in addition to potential hostiles within (the Loyalist community), the French, the Spanish, and unrest among the aboriginal peoples. Obviously the founding fathers were thinking of insurrection, rebellion and invasion scenarios. I don't believe the courts have taken the environment that the 2nd was written in. But the British, Spanish and French are gone, the aboriginals have been pacified, and Mexico isn't much of a threat. The United States is no longer surrounded by enemies that pose a threat to its continental security.

So the question is: For what purpose does an arsenal of weapons in private hands that collectively exceeds the small arm stocks of the armed forces of most nation states serve? Self defense is a non-starter as answer. The NRA and firearms ownership advocates need to prove that as many people have been saved by the private ownership of firearms as those that have been killed or murdered.

Thank you for this quote from a rather old text. When this was written, the US was a rural country with a very weak government. Additionally, it was in the process of expanding West - a process that involved killing the native Americans to take over their land. Now, in the 21st century, America has a strong government, local police forces and there is no need to kill Native Americans, because that "mission was accomplised" over a century ago!!! Surely the need for carrying guns has diminished considerably???

Thank you - I am already intimidated. If the USA is so dangerous, I will not visit - will wait till it becomes safer. One question: I have visited Canada quite often. How do the Canadians manage without guns??

Poorly written article, coming from a position of ignorance of many things. I think George Carlin summed up this type of thinking best when he said "Narrow, unenlightened self-interest does not impress me."

Seriously, who gives a fig what Europe thinks of America? Europe led the world into 2 world wars, before that they were constantly fighting each other for thousands of years and they still have a "ruled over" mentality. Even after WW2 you had nations like France who needed our help to try and hang onto Vietnam, costing us far too much.

And they have the audacity to criticize our rights to self-defense against criminals and tyrannical governments? Fools.

We started our country here in the NEW WORLD to get away from OLD WORLD government, mindset and class systems, yet we seem to want to now become more like them.

Move to Europe if you like it so much, there is no reason to change America into something it is clearly not.

Both "crime and totalitarianism" - 2 reasons for owning a gun. For reducing crime, why not just improve the quality of the police. That is what other countries do. In the UK, for example, not even the police needs to carry a gun. For protection from your own government, surely you are not being serious. From the outside it seems that the USA is a fully functional democracy. Why do you need any protection against your own government??

Honestly, I don't get the correlation between citizens owning weapons and liberty today. Surely, made sense a few hundred years ago when outlaws on horses roved and raised hell and the Brits were being Brits, i.e., obnoxious and wanting to put their hands in your pocket.

But the US in 2012?

Defend one's property? As in getting into a shooting war with home invaders? Or blowing the brains out of someone ambling towards you a packet of Skittles in hand? I mean seriously.

Use your brains. Either don't pay taxes towards law enforcement or let them do what they can do a lot better than you.

Obama got it right, even though he lost PC points: these are people who cling to guns because it makes them fill bigger then their unfortunate lives would otherwise allow.

As a gun-toting Swiss whose favorite past time is going down the range at least once a week I must say that I've yet to meet anyone here that has anything very positive to say about ultra-lax American gun laws or crazy gun culture. Many pro-gun Americans like to make comparisons between our two countries but our differences are wider as the Grand Canyon.

Many of the (presumably) American contributors here have emphasized the ruggedly macho ‘individualism’ of their nation; personal responsibility seems to be the watchword. But where does this fit in with the very American habit of suing everybody else for events that might have been avoided by the application of common sense? Or taking your news from Fox, and voting for the lobbyists’ candidate? Individualism means thinking for yourself, not following the dictates of the Koch Brothers.
My overall impression of the USA is one of a society governed by fear. Fear of each other, where any ill-timed gesture can be construed as an attack; fear of anyone whose colour, religion or culture is different to ‘mine’. Trayvon Martin was ‘suspicious’ because he was a black man in an area that didn’t accept/permit blacks. Perhaps the reason for the high black prison population, and the ‘racial grievances’ is because many whites still cannot accept that black people are their equals, that they are, in short, no longer slaves. And so the idea of mutually hostile racial groups, fomented by big business to increase competition and keep workers under control, the fear of losing your job at a moment’s notice with the subsequent loss of your medical insurance. The fear that the next wave of immigrants will undermine your position. Look at your history- the Anglos feared the Natives; the Irish, Slavs, Jews, Italians and ex-Slaves were pitted against each other. Divide and rule.
As for ‘effeminate’ Europe, I have many American colleagues who work here, and their overwhelming opinion is that they are much safer here than in the US, they can walk the streets without fear, using their common sense to judge which areas are safe or not to visit (nowhere is perfect)...
And when it comes to protecting one's daughter, if she’s attacked in your house when you’re not there, your gun isn’t going to be much good, is it? And if you’re at home at the time then there’s little likelihood of her being attacked, isn’t there?

An interesting idea, however many dictators and totalitarian regimes began with the acquiesence of the majority of people. If the majority of people who own guns fall in behind a dictator, would America remain free? Also, I wonder how civilians, or even some type of civil militia, would fare against the regular army, who have far more than just guns. I think the rise of a dictatorship might be just a bit more complicated than stated in your comment.

Greetings from an honest and cultured citizen of Mexico (the "weak neighbor" of the USA), a human being tired of violence inside and around his country... Hoping that one day, we people from the Americas can return to our principles of responsible freedom and lawful coexistence, without any drug wars, weapons trading, nor racism; and we can exchange guns for pens, jails for schools, and electrical fences for trees. Peace!

Our military accomplished everything of which you are speaking. The fact that guns were in x number of American homes really isn't applicable. Do you really believe the Japanese were more concerned about armed civilians than the U.S. military?